Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: Apr 30, 2013 8:56am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Concerned that my blog has been added to your archive

@Peter Frouman:

"What the Internet Archive does is very clearly absolutely legal under the "fair use" provisions of U.S. copyright law"

First off "fair-use" is a legal defense and that can only be determined by the Courts not by private company or the on line personal diaries you got confused by.

Under the REAL U.S Copyright Act:
§ 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section,
if —
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and
(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.
(b) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives of the type described by clause (2) of subsection (a),
if —
(1) the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.
(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete,
if —
(1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

You spot the obvious "errors" on behalf of the IA Peter Frouman?, or, do you (like the IA) expect everyone to pretend not to comprehend what they're reading?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Peter Frouman Date: Apr 30, 2013 9:13pm
Forum: web Subject: Re: Concerned that my blog has been added to your archive

jory2,
It's quite strange that you would refer to the U.S. District Court opinions and orders in the cases of Parker v. Google [1] (affirmed on appeal) and Field v. Google [2] as "on line personal diaries" and it's quite clear that you are the one who is confused. It's also quite baffling that in a discussion about the fair use provisions of Section 107 of USC Title 17, you would quote the completely irrelevant (to a determination of fair use) Section 108. Your arguments are almost incomprehensible because they don't make any sense and are clearly based on complete ignorance of the fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law and the numerous legal opinions and decisions covering determinations of fair use.

Fair use is indeed determined on a case by case basis by considering the four factors stated in Section 107. The cases of Parker v. Google and Field v. Google involved the Google cache archive which does about the same thing that the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and crawler does. In those cases, Google's cache was found to be a fair use. Thus, what the Internet Archive does is very clearly absolutely legal under the "fair use" provisions of U.S. copyright law. There is no uncertainty about this - the legal cases involving the Google cache have already provided the correct answer.

References:

1. http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06d0306p.pdf

2. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/fieldgoogle.pdf

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: May 1, 2013 3:15am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Concerned that my blog has been added to your archive

Peter Frouman,
"It's quite strange that you would refer to the U.S. District Court opinions and orders in the cases of Parker v. Google [1] (affirmed on appeal) and Field v. Google [2]as on line personal diaries"

I didn't, you did, nice try btw!, but it doesn't apply here at all; I'll get to that later.

"It's also quite baffling that in a discussion about the fair use provisions of Section 107 of USC Title 17, you would quote the completely irrelevant (to a determination of fair use) Section 108."

Here's the WHOLE of section 107:
§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

next is section 108 (the info I posted)

§ 108 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives, the section YOU considered to be
"completely irrelevant"? Really???

Now back to your links and "References". First and most important to note is this website is NOT a search engine, will NOT be legally argued as one, thus making your references completely irrelevant.

You say:
"In those cases, Google's cache was found to be a fair use. Thus, what the Internet Archive does is very clearly absolutely legal under the "fair use" provisions of U.S. copyright law. There is no uncertainty about this - the legal cases involving the Google cache have already provided the correct answer."

Google is T E M P O R A R Y, WHEREAS the IA actually makes permanent EXACT replacement copies of the original and serves them up to the public without express permission or consent.

Can you spot the difference yet????? Or ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: JaneSmith01 Date: May 1, 2013 2:02am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Concerned that my blog has been added to your archive

I'm not entirely sure. Google's cache is both temporary and incomplete, whereas the Archive endeavours to capture a complete and functional version of the pages for display in perpetuity, outside of the owner's control. It seems that under US law, Fair Use is judged in large part based upon whether or not the source is reproduced in its entirety. I don't know of any proper precedents that accurately test this provision.

I am not taking a side here, but I am interested in the ramifications of this particular incident re: privacy of user data and the ability to have it excluded without making use of the automated robot exclusion protocol in cases where, for instance, the user does not have total control over the host site's inner workings.